Why are people dumping before the Oct. 25 fork  Because nobody gives a flying fuck about Bitcoin Gold. Actually, some of us actually could give two fucks. But that's about it.  I know futures are what they are, but the thing is probably less shitty than we expect... https://bleutrade.com/exchange/BTG/BTC -> 0.05 BTC That is worth a few fucks if it keeps the price Daily Volume is 0.88 BTC, don't hold your breath  |
|
|
|
|
The current state of replay protection for 2X is:
They are discussing making a pre-prepared transaction in the forking block (so its only on the B2X chain) this block will then be used like a dust fountain (or faucet) spewing out tiny bits of B2X chain dust on request. Once you have mixed this dust with your coins they can easily be split, as the TX can't be replayed on the existing chain.
Of course this is not proper replay protection, they don't want that because they would need to get everyone to install new (SPV) wallets.
They are hoping to fool these newbies into moving to their 2X chain without them even knowing.
Talk about dishonest....
|
|
|
|
For all those who haven't so far, it may be a good idea to use this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=996318.5720Post a bitcoin address (preferably one you haven't ever used - or are going to use) Sign a message with it, and post the message. Someone will confirm the message matches the address, by re-quoting it If your account is hacked, messages deleted, BTC address in profile changed etc. You should still be able to recover your account if you can resign a message from a mod. |
|
|
|
Why do you bother, just repeating all the lies.
First of all, I apologize for my bad English. From my point of view they are not lies. I live in a Latin American country. Little by little, they approach my people interested in bitcoin, and before yesterday, one of those people bought. It made its transaction with a fee of 1.5 dollars, and it took a couple of hours to be confirmed. An unattractive experience for someone who starts with cryptocurrencys. For a person from the United States, Europe, or any developed country, $ 1.5 may seem like a small amount, but here, in a country with high inflation, it is no small matter. In theory, bitcoin emerged as an alternative system in the midst of a crisis, as an opportunity for unbanked people, to make things more just. Bitcoin, slowly, is giving away users, merchants and utility to other cryptocurrencys. In addition, Sewgit with regard to code, is much more complex than an increase in block size. I agree that changes to the protocol should be well tested and audited, but Core has had much more than a year to do the research and testing needed for a block size increase. Independent of the quality of its developers, Core has shown great intransigence, lack of will, and poor political coordination. There is lots of spam in the mempool you can see the transactions, look at what they contain. Ok, it's not real adoption ... and we do not need cheaper transactions and predictable confirmations. There is no such thing as lightning coins, and it won't support fractional reservere. Lightning Coin is a euphemism. As another user mentioned in this thread, it would take 30 years for each person on the planet to open and close a lightning channel. And although maybe bitcoin will never use it all, eventually 1MB will not cater. How will I get my bitcoin bought in an exchange if the network does not support low-cost transactions? Most Core Devs believe that the block size will increase when its actually necessary. I would be very grateful if you could indicate where these statements are. However, Core is not a unified entity. As you will know, developers in the past have already signed up for an increase in block size, agreement that is not respected. There are even developers who think 1MB per forever is enough. The more people who run a node the better, strength of the network comes from everyone having a stake and not just relying on miners to protect us. I agree, nodes are important, but we must also consider that the more users get the bitcoin network, we will potentially have many more nodes than they now exist. These are not even points for debate, your statements are just lies. I repeat, they are not lies. It was just an absurd and ironic point of view. I love Bitcoin, it's always been that way. But it frustrates me to see intransigence, discord and hate in the community. It bothers me that some want to move forward and leave others out, when those "others" were the ones who gave life to the network in its early years (I mean foot users, not speculators, small businesses, miners, etc). I'll speak more generally, we all want Bitcoin to scale, eventually to probably millions of transactions every few minutes. If transactions are extremely cheap (such as $0.01) the blocks will be full of spam, some jerk will fill them up. So we need a fee market to find an equilibrium between cheapest fees and spam prevention. Although it is probably technically possible, it seems excessive to require a payments system to remember & process every single transaction, I mean if I buy a coffee in Tokyo, do I really need to send that information to 1000's of nodes around the world. Can we achieve security & decentralised consensus of my holdings without that? So this is where lightning comes in, you get all the benefits of Bitcoin without the on-chain foot print. I'm not sure how lightning will develop but I can imagine you will occasionally create an on chain transaction to open the channel, it will have a some of your coins in, and this last you days/weeks/months before you need to close it. One of my biggest issues with Bitcoin has been the 10 minute confirmation time, 0-conf is insecure, so how do I reliably buy a something in say a shop without waiting for confirmation, L2 is the answer. So rather than perpetually increasing the block size, which is the lazy approach to scaling, I think the Core Dev's are trying to implement a bunch of other optimisations and improvements to maximise the efficiency of the network. I don't have references to Core Dev's saying they would like a block size increase to happen at some point, but the only Dev I know who wants small blocks (actually he wants a reduction in size to 300k) is Luke-jr. I believe we will need to increase the block size, probably very substantially at some point, but first we need to optimise the entire system, MAST, Schnorr, side chains etc. Then we can scale the blocks as required. If you want Bitcoin to improve rapidly in a co-ordinated and efficient approach then a centralised power structure would be far better. Bitcoin is the first de-centralised system, we are all learning how its going to work (or fail). The best hope we have of retaining a non-centralised power structure is by fighting to keep it away from corporations and other powerful entities. If we fail to do this, it just becomes just another payments system and loses all it's value. Throughout history centralised power structures have emerged from almost every situation, but Bitcoin is hopefully different. It's going to take time, but we have time, lets not rush it, let's get it right. The people desperate to fix the block size are those who are financially invested, they need these upgrades to support their businesses. They think Bitcoin should adjust to fit in with what they need so they can build faster and therefore Bitcoin can grow faster. If we placate these businesses, Bitcoin will grow faster, but it will be at the expense of de-centralisation. This fork is not about 2x block size increase, it is about sacking core and replacing them with dev's who will conform. I know high fees are painful, but if the miners hadn't resisted segwit a couple of years ago we would be a lot further down the road of Bitcoin improvements. It is not the Core Devs who are holding back development. This is illustrated by the 'no replay protection' in 2x, clearly this is designed to attack the existing chain and destroy it, thereby sacking the Core devs. I believe the best solution for those who don't like Segwit and the current chain is to go to BCash, we can then compete in the market without the war. |
|
|
|
Dont worry, we have Segwit Unconfirmed transactions are just spam, produced by malicious agents with evil intentions in search of power. No real adoption. Anyway, soon we will have Lightning Network, and Joe will only have to buy Lightning Coins to participate in the "great revolution". The great revolution of the fractional reserve banking 2.0. And if you think it is not enough, all this with the sponsorship of blocks of 1MB FOREVER! We will have the most decentralized network and nodes in raspberry pi. So, leave your stupidities and think big! PS: Seriously, I love the 5000s Congratulations to all! Why do you bother, just repeating all the lies. There is lots of spam in the mempool you can see the transactions, look at what they contain. There is no such thing as lightning coins, and it won't support fractional reservere. Most Core Devs believe that the block size will increase when its actually necessary. The more people who run a node the better, strength of the network comes from everyone having a stake and not just relying on miners to protect us. These are not even points for debate, your statements are just lies. |
|
|
|
Our wall observer forum needs threads |
|
|
|
Voting infringes on no-one elses rights and is peaceful.
Actually it infringes if it's about ruling on other ppl's (non voters) lives. That's why if you vote you can't complain. No it doesn't, it's the expression of an opinion. The enforcement of rules (usually state/police by threat of violence) that have been enacted by the voting mechanism, is the thing that may infringe on people's rights. |
|
|
|
What possible motivation could there be for removing someones freedom of expression by using law?
It is acceptable that a government may take a different view to a sub set of it's people, but it is not acceptable that a government denies those people from expressing themselves in a peaceful way,
It is a common misunderstanding that freedom of expression is an unlimited freedom. It isn't. You can't publish clearly racist manifests, etc... But this is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of breaking the law. Expressing anything (not ilegal) in a peaceful way is ok. Who has said/or done anything against that? This type of expression can't in any way be describe in a negative way like you are suggesting. Its not hate speech or screaming fire in a movie theatre. Screw the law, this is about rights!, laws can be made to say anything but it doesn't make them right. Stop looking to Law makers or the state as some unquestionable deity. The right of peaceful free expression trumps all laws! Again, free expression has nothing to do with this. Do you think I have the right to go and just lay down in the middle of a road as a matter of "free expression"? Do police have the right (or better yet the duty) to remove me from the road for my own and others safety? Or do my right of "free expression" prevails? DO I have the right to stash a bunch of neumatics in the middle of the road and burn them as a matter of "free expression"? Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbPuBAk_lQEDo I have the right to block police when they are going after a criminal just because I feel like? Are they right if they just put me apart or even beat me if I persist in my obstruction? Maybe you would prefer to live in full anarchy (if there is any country like that) but I would prefer to live according to a minimum of rules that everyone, or at least most the people, respect. Also, for all those people that vouch for anarchy but do have Bitcoins.... Do you really think you would be able to keep hodling them when someone went to beat you to death until you gave your private keys to them... because they have the "means" and "freedom" to take it from you? Each one of your examples is not "peaceful", or it infringes on other peoples rights. Voting infringes on no-one elses rights and is peaceful. |
|
|
|
What possible motivation could there be for removing someones freedom of expression by using law?
It is acceptable that a government may take a different view to a sub set of it's people, but it is not acceptable that a government denies those people from expressing themselves in a peaceful way,
It is a common misunderstanding that freedom of expression is an unlimited freedom. It isn't. You can't publish clearly racist manifests, etc... But this is not a matter of free speech. It is a matter of breaking the law. Expressing anything (not ilegal) in a peaceful way is ok. Who has said/or done anything against that? This type of expression can't in any way be describe in a negative way like you are suggesting. Its not hate speech or screaming fire in a movie theatre. Screw the law, this is about rights!, laws can be made to say anything but it doesn't make them right. Stop looking to Law makers or the state as some unquestionable deity. The right of peaceful free expression trumps all laws! |
|
|
|
3 days ago i mine 50 WHL per 24h, on 6x1070 8gb. Now is 12 WHL per 24h. The difficulty of mining has grown five times in 3 days, and now WHL mining is not profitable.
Yes, I've given up too, back to nicehash... |
|
|
|
About the referendum it is indeed ilegal, as anyone that knows spanish law and constitution do inmediately realize. It was the Judges and not the government who sent the police to seize the ballot boxes.
Illegal or not, you shouldn't beat your own people for: a) Peacefully protesting. b) Voting. I do completely agree. AFAIK noone was beaten for that (trying to vote or peacefully protesting). Police had strict orders from Judge to seize ballot boxes, the only people that were beaten were actively hindering (not sure if that is the right english word) the police job. In fact, in most the places they were not able to comply orders because it would have mean a major confrontation and put people (and police units themselves) in higher danger. It was an extremely complex operative, probably the most complex this country has ever coped with. I do also recognize this incident have had a very bad impact in international media. It would have been way better to have intervened way sooner and just arrest the promoters of the rebelion without exposing any law-abiding citizens to any innecesary risk. What possible motivation could there be for removing someones freedom of expression by using law? It is acceptable that a government may take a different view to a sub set of it's people, but it is not acceptable that a government denies those people from expressing themselves in a peaceful way, |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's going great... But what the hell is happening with altcoins?  Can't we follow the old rule? When bitcoin goes up, alts go up too?  People converting altcoins to btc to get more bitcoin gold, i think. How does that work? Holders of clonecoin get another kind of clonecoin? As long as it's free why not. Does anyone even know someone who is going to buy Bitcoin Gold? I can't believe it can maintain any reasonable price with all the people waiting to dump. |
|
|
|
To split your coins
On BTC chain you have some coins in address (A), you send your coins to another address you own (B), and include a further special recipient address 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi to whom you send a few satoshis. (You have to use send to many option in your wallet, to send them at once).
Any transactions that contain this special address will be ignored by 2X miners.
Once this is successful, you will have your BTC in an address(B) you own.
IIUC, I would not employ this mechanism for my coins. The part that I have underlined seems to require full faith in what the miners will do. You have no a priori method of knowing whether that address will 'be ignored' by any miner. Yes, it's a policy, miners could ignore the policy and include the transaction. No, this is not correct. Transactions to that address are will be considered invalid by 2x nodes & miners; A block containing them would be invalid and not be built upon. My mistake you are right. |
|
|
|
To split your coins
On BTC chain you have some coins in address (A), you send your coins to another address you own (B), and include a further special recipient address 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi to whom you send a few satoshis. (You have to use send to many option in your wallet, to send them at once).
Any transactions that contain this special address will be ignored by 2X miners.
Once this is successful, you will have your BTC in an address(B) you own.
IIUC, I would not employ this mechanism for my coins. The part that I have underlined seems to require full faith in what the miners will do. You have no a priori method of knowing whether that address will 'be ignored' by any miner. Yes, it's a policy, miners could ignore the policy and include the transaction. But if you are sending coins to your own addresses, and they break policy and include the transaction in a block, there is no harm done. |
|
|
|
oh oh do tell how block increases helps on boarding the world? Would you mind doing a simple math on how big your blocks should be for every person in the world to do just one transaction on chain per day? I'll wait
About 25G. Clearly that's way too big, what's the solution, L2? |
|
|
|
Your BTC transaction will be replayed on BTC2X.
That's by design, for maximum disruption. A hostile takeover attempt by any reasonable standards. I think splitting BTC-B2X will require mixing freshly mined coins into one's transactions. The landing chain of the transaction will be the chain where the fresh coins were mined. I still have to figure out how to do that. There seems to be a different way invoving timelocked transactions - but I won't have a clue about this bit of magic until I research the matter. BTW, for the technically knowledgeable: pointers would be welcome  There is going to be opt-in replay protection. (Why opt-in and not strong, see https://bitcointechtalk.com/how-segwit2x-replay-protection-works-1a5e41767103) To split your coins On BTC chain you have some coins in address (A), you send your coins to another address you own (B), and include a further special recipient address 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi to whom you send a few satoshis. (You have to use send to many option in your wallet, to send them at once). Any transactions that contain this special address will be ignored by 2X miners. Once this is successful, you will have your BTC in an address(B) you own. Now you switch to the 2X chain, and send again from your first address (A), this time to a different addresses (C) you own this time omitting the special recipient address. After this: A is empty on both chains B contains BTC coins C contains 2X coins Huh WTF!?!? WTF, exactly, thats the replay protection they have used, there are plenty of better ways. Of course one of the best ways to do it is like BCH, but that will break SPV wallets. So if you are running an SPV wallet you may get automatically 'upgraded' to 2X without any action. |
|
|
|
Yes, it is good strategy.
>so few people will be buying 2x,
Nobody will be buying 2x, they will be buying BTC and those transactions will be replaying on 2x
Theres going to be opt-in replay protection. To split your coins On BTC chain you have some coins in address (A), you send your coins to another address you own (B), and include a further special recipient address 3Bit1xA4apyzgmFNT2k8Pvnd6zb6TnwcTi to whom you send a few satoshis. Any transactions that contain this special address will be ignored by 2X miners. Once this is successful, you will have your BTC in an address(B) you own. Now you switch to the 2X chain, and send again from your first address (A), this time to a different addresses (C) you own this time omitting the special recipient address. After this: A is empty on both chains B contains BTC coins C contains 2X coins (Always split to addresses you own, so if anything goes wrong, it shouldn't matter) But I don't think I'll be bothering to split. |
|
|
|
What will you do if 80-90% of miners start mining > 1MB blocks ?
Will you ignore this chain and will be waiting 1-2 hours for 1 confirmation on original chain ?
If somebody makes bitcoin transaction then it apears on Segwit2x chain (bigger block, faster confirmation).
I think it takes hours(or days) to confirm on original chain.
Do I miss something ? (It will be not the same as with Bitcoin cash)
I plan not to use Bitcoin over the fork period. It costs me nothing to wait, so I will wait and wait some more, until the 2x attack runs out of money. I believe the users don't want 2x, so few people will be buying 2x, the price will drop, and it won't be able to support the large amount of miners (80-90%) that ideologically want to mine it. So, to pay their electricity bills and realise the investment in hardware, a percentage will switch back to BTC. The miners may have deep pockets, but they can't continue indefinitely. No doubt this will all drag on for a while, but like I said, I can wait, and they can't. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
